Tribunal of Palermo, 25 July 2026

Four substantially identical decrees of the Tribunal of Palermo, issued in appeals under Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008 brought by Egyptian and Bangladeshi nationals detained at the Sikania Centre in Siculiana (AG), whose applications had been rejected as manifestly unfounded pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 on the basis of the circumstance in Article 42(1), point (j), of that Regulation (nationality of a third country with an average annual Eurostat recognition rate of 20% or lower):

• R.G. 9739/2026, judge Michele Guarnotta, 25 July 2026 — PDF
• R.G. 9760/2026, judge Michele Guarnotta, 25 July 2026 — PDF
• R.G. 9759/2026, judge Angela Lo Piparo, 27 July 2026 — PDF
• judge Flavia Coppola, 29 July 2026 — PDF (R.G. number redacted)

The merely indicative value of the Eurostat figure

The Tribunal starts from two premises: review of the regularity of the procedure applied must be carried out of its own motion, and the border procedure too must ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application.

In the President's determination, as in the contested decision, the reference to Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 “remains merely assertive and is exhausted in the reference to the Eurostat statistical figure, without an effective verification of the negative conditions laid down by the same provision”. The provision does not in fact allow automatic application of the procedure on the basis of the recognition rate alone: it requires it to be excluded where the situation in the third country has significantly changed, or where the applicant belongs to a category for which that figure is not representative of the actual protection needs. The statistical figure therefore has merely indicative value and cannot replace the individual assessment, which must precede the classification of the application as subject to the accelerated border procedure, since that classification entails the compression of the procedural guarantees.

The procedural consequence

Absent a correct and reasoned verification of the conditions of Article 42(1), point (j), and (3), point (e), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the accelerated border procedure cannot be considered validly initiated and is not suitable to produce the derogating effects proper to the procedure, neither as regards the non-automatic nature of the suspension, nor as regards the reduction of the time for deciding the case, nor as regards the decision of manifest unfoundedness under Article 28-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008. The omission is not a mere formal irregularity, but affects the legitimising prerequisite of the procedure chosen: it follows that Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008 is inapplicable and none of the cases of Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 applies, with the consequent application of Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and suspension by operation of law of the enforceability of the contested measure.

The reasoning grafts the new rules onto the principle of Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite), no. 11399/2024, according to which the compression of procedural guarantees can result only from the correct application and implementation of the accelerated procedure: a principle expressed in relation to non-compliance with time limits, but “transposable” to the case where the procedural guarantees laid down to protect the applicant are not complied with, because automatic suspension is an expression of the principle of effective judicial protection.

The same statistical figure had been used twice — first to choose the procedure, then to decide on the merits — and the observation implies that recourse to the Eurostat figure as a prerequisite for the border procedure requires an individual investigation. In the same sense Trib. Palermo, R.G. 8695/2026 and Trib. Bologna, 6 August 2026.

The PDFs are published in redacted form to protect personal data.